On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 09:24:29AM -0700, David Daney wrote:
> On 07/17/2013 11:23 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 10:32:22PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 21:59:54 -0700 Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 10:34:52AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 4 Jul 2013 15:26:02 +0000 "Daney, David" <David.Daney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> f21afc25f9ed4 ("smp.h: Use local_irq_{save,restore}() in !SMP version of
> >>>>>> on_each_cpu()") converted on_each_cpu() to a C function. This required
> >>>>>> inclusion of irqflags.h, which broke ia64 and mn10300 (at least) due to
> >>>>>> header ordering hell.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please excuse the top posting,
> >>>>
> >>>> Fixed it!
> >>>>
> >>>>> but weren't these issues resolved weeks ago?
> >>>>
> >>>> That indeed appears to be the case. Given that I'd merged the
> >>>> offending patch, it would perhaps have made sense to cc me on its
> >>>> fixes...
>
> Not really possible, I had already fixed all the problems and the
> corresponding fixes were in the pipeline for merging *before* you got
> involved. By the time you started sending patches, there was no
> problem. Now, because of the miscommunication, we now have a seemingly
> unending stream of patches reverting and unreverting this thing.
>
> >>>
> >>> So, this patch is now in Linus's tree, should it be reverted? Should it
> >>> be applied to the stable tree as it was originally marked, or just
> >>> dropped and not worried about for 3.10?
> >>>
> >>> confused,
> >>
> >> Heh. I have a queued a patch to switch it back to an inline function,
> >> but things are OK in mainline as-is so that's for 3.12.
> >>
> >> So 3.11 will have the macro implementation of on_each_cpu(), and I
> >> suggest that 3.10.x do the same.
> >
> > Thanks for that, I've now queued this up for 3.10-stable.
>
> I don't see why it is either necessary, or even desirable, to muck
> around in 3.10. To my knowledge, there are no known problems related to
> the on_each_cpu() implementation in 3.10.1.
Ok, if there are no problems, I'll go drop this. I'm guessing if anyone
cares about ia64 and other arches hit a problem, I'll hear about it and
add this back in for 3.10.
Andrew, any objection to me doing this?
thanks,
greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html